How to use this Page

As mentioned on numerous occasions in this blog, patience isn't one of my strong points. This usually doesn't work in my favor especially when it comes to waiting for updates/news regarding the fate of my plays. Many of them took cyber trips to numerous geographical locations around the globe in the hope that they would see a stage but so far, no response one way or the other.

According to the various playwriting related sites where this topic is discussed and digested, this is not a good sign but perhaps no definitive decision has been made as to their stage-a-bility. At least that's what I tell myself.

There is a pattern as to my follow up process, which includes avowing to myself that I will wait to receive "the word."

"Gotta give it time," I tell myself. "People don't respond because you want them to. Your plays are among hundreds, maybe thousands, that are submitted with dreams of production."

Patience today, patience tomorrow, inevitably, and when experiencing a particularly discouraging "why do I bother" or "maybe my plays suck" period, a follow-up e-mail is sent out. Usually, the end result is no response followed by a period of "why didn't I wait."

Upon reflection, perhaps a follow-up questionnaire to the submitted theatres would facilitate the process. Something to the effect:

Dear blah-blah (insert theatre name/producer/to whom it may concern),

Recently, (insert date that play was submitted), you were the lucky recipient of my play, blah-blah (insert name of play).

It has been (number of days/weeks/months/years/who remembers) since there has been any updates as to whether said play strikes your fancy. Perhaps the lack of communication on your part is a result of (pick one) a) stunning dialogue requiring further thought b) seeking a period of time in which to program the play to optimize audience participation  c) unable to open file.

When could a decision on its fate one way or the other be expected: a) days b) months c)years d) never (please circle one)

Yours forever in hope,

A. Playwright

It's worth a shot. Am I right?

Add a Comment

Somehow - perhaps it's the arrival of Spring and all that it promises - one anticipates updates as to the fate of one's (mine of course) literary send-outs. More specifically and to put it in simply and succinctly ('that's a lot of sss's, Eleanor'), will any of my plays see a stage this year.

Throughout the year minor dialogue changes were made, a few lines were eliminated or added but for the most part they were sent on their way based on the strength of the story line and characters, to seek their fate. Waiting to receive news about one's plays is comparable, at least for me, to sending your children out to seek their fortune in the jungle of life (feeling very philosophical today) for their own good, if not for the caregiver's good. So they're all "out there" and the wait for any updates is all-consuming wondering and hypothesizing what's happening at the 'other end', so to speak.

"How many more plays are left to be read?" a literary manager might ask a theatre producer and play readers while assessing the amount of plays still waiting to be read  "Seems like there are thousands more waiting to be read."

"We have to narrow it down to just a few promising plays, already," the literary manager will/could/might declare, while checking her/his cell phone for phone messages. "Time is marching on and we have to choose some potential money-makers for the coming season."

"I've come across a promising production," one of the readers could suggest, "although the playwright doesn't have any track record. The play, though, is really a good read."

"Nothing produced, anywhere, in the whole wide world?" the producer would ask of the reader.

"Not according to her biography and CV but really - she's good and this play is and an entertaining read  - really funny!" the reader would affirm.

"Could be problematic if she hasn't got a recognizable name that could sell tickets, though," the literary manager and/or producer would put forward.

"But it's a really good play," the reader would insist. "Why not give her a chance?"

"Not bankable," the literary manager and/or producer would answer, somewhat sadly (one would hope). "File away for future considerations."

Pure speculation on my part but one has to do something waiting for "the word". Then again, depending on what the word is, perhaps ignorance is bliss.

Add a Comment

Just reading a piece about the release of the re-make of  the latest re-make of"The Great Gatsby." Personally, a large proporation of the film remakes that I've seen rarely matched up to the original. This leads one - me - to wonder why producers/directors/film production companies feel the necessity to update a film that on the whole, was good orginally.

In the way of background information and according to Wikipedia, the story, "narrated by Nicholas "Nick" Carraway, a 30 year old Yale graduate and WWI veteran from the midwest, who takes a job in New York as a bond salesman. He rents a small house on Long Island, in the (fictional) village of West Egg, next door to the lavish mansion of Jay Gatsby, a mysterious millionaiare who holds extravagant parties."

Checking further with IMDB, the first film version dates back to 1926 and starred Warner Baxter as Jay Gatsby and Lois Wilson as Daisy Buchanan. Furthermore, much to my surprise, a stage production opened at the Ambassdor Theater on February 26, 1926, ran for 112 performances and directed by George Cukor.

The next film version in black and white, was made in 1949 starring Alan Ladd and Betty Fields. I always liked Ladd as an actor and although I never saw the film, most likely he did a decent job. The next incarnation in 1974 was the one that I saw and being an admirer/fan of Robert Redford, I thought it was...okay. Didn't particularly care for Mia Farrow as Daisy and thinking back, there was very little chemistry between the two stars.

Last but not least, it appears there was yet another version in 2000 (wasn't aware of this) with Mina Sorvino and one Toby Stephens in the lead roles.

That brings us up to the latest incarnation to be released in May 2013, starring Leonardo di Caprio and Carrie Mulligan. Somehow, di Caprio, at least in my mind, doesn't have that suave, sophisticated personna necessary to play Gatsby. Then again, who knows.

This is all leading up to the question originally posted here, as to the necessity of yet another re-make of the re-make of.... One re-make is acceptable or even two re-makes but five? The point being made here is that script writers should be searching for their own ideas, rather than turning out scripts based on the story lines and scripts created by other script writers.

In as far as the newest and hopefully the last version of this story, I'm going to pass but for people who are intrigued to know what the film is about, here is the trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343092/?ref_=sr_1

Add a Comment

As is the case with many - I'll go out on a limb here and use the word 'most' playwrights - I submit to calls for submission or theatres that I feel would be a good fit for my literary output. To date the plays are still waiting to see the light of day or stage and I've shared some of the rejection letters or most often, form letters, in this blog, because all aspiring playwrights have "been there - read that." Right? Besides sometimes it just feels good to vent.

Anyway, today in my e-mail, I received an invitation to enter the BBC International Playwriting Competition. It's obviously a form letter sent out to all of us who entered their competition last year and were rejected. I submitted my one act, "Retribution" which in my humble opinion was damned good but then who am I? Actually, I adapted the play for radio adding sound effects but given that the play takes place in a hairstyling salon between a man and a hairdresser seeking revenge for a terrible act perpetrated on her by the very man who is now sitting in her chair, there really wasn't that much sound one could add. We're talking here about scissors snipping, old-fashioned hair dryers, the man choking and gasping for air - that type of stuff. Upon reflection perhaps it wasn't meant for radio but the dialogue was riveting! Not riveting enough, obviously.

Here is the form invitation for anyone outside the UK who is interested in trying their luck:

Dear writer (it's always so gratifying in a letter when you are addressed as: "dear writer"),

We are contacting you because you entered our International Radio Playwriting Competition in 2007. We’re delighted to be able to tell you that our biennial competition is launching again this year! For details of how to enter, exciting interviews with writers and handy tips, please visit our website on or after the 18th October at

www.bbcworldservice.com/radioplay

Once again, there are two first prizes: one for writers for whom English is a first language, the other for those with English as a second language. Each winner will receive £2,500 and a trip to London to see their play recorded at the BBC.

There will also be the prize of a digital or short wave radio for runners up (see rules for further details).

So, if you are resident outside the UK and have a new play to send us, please consider entering again. The competition opens with the broadcast of the fantastic award winning drama Cigarettes and Chocolate by Anthony Minghella - to give you further inspiration!
Please tune in, log on and send us your scripts. We look forward to reading them.
Kind regards World Drama, BBC World Service.

So now I'm going over my plays to see if any of them meet their criteria and/or are adaptable. One of them does include tea cups clinking a lot, which might hit a high note with British sensibilities and another one includes pigeons squawking. I mean, a digital or short wave radio would also be nice.

Add a Comment

Display Comments Add a Comment